July 18, 2008

Cheney, Plame, And Executive Privilege

Time does not permit me to delve into this, so let me pose a puzzler - since Waxman is seeking DoJ files rather than Presidential and Vice-Presidential papers, surely this issue can be taken up in an Obama Administration. In which case I predict heartbreak on the left when President Barack decides to put institutional prerogatives ahead of lefty fantasies.

I CAN QUIT ANYTIME: Sorry, this will be cryptic and, for a while at least, relatively link free. However, the gist of the relevant timeline is that Cheney and Libby discussed Joe Wilson's wife in early June 2003. Libby then claimed to have forgotten that chat; he learned about Wilson's wife as if for the first time when Tim Russert told him about Wilson and wife on July 10 or 11, following the Joe Wilson op-ed but preceding the fateful Novak column. However, Libby had discussed Wilson's wife with Judy Miller on July 8, at a meeting where Cheney had authorized Libby to leak info from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Cheney and Libby also discussed what to tell reporters on Sat July 12, before Libby was asked about Wilson's wife by Matt Cooper of TIME.

And Fitzgerald introduced a copy of the Wilson op-ed marked up in Cheney's handwriting with a mention of Wilson's wife.

Comments

When Libby told Cheney that he'd first heard of Plame from Cheney, that is in June, Cheney looked up at him and said "From me?" She paled into insignificance, along with her 'low-level- husband until it started warming up in July, when the Whitehouse was the last to understand what was going on. This is the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Joe Wilson Straight, and Libby is innocent, and Russert a perjuror, now past our judgement.
=============================

This is the usual framing of the issue, but I think it's incorrect. Nobody gave a rat's a$$ about Plame on June 9, 2003 (except possibly for Armitage). And this is not a real-time recollection (or even taken during the July conversations, when even then they would probably not remember correctly), it's Libby's version from months later when asked to recreate the incident wherein he initially heard that bit of trivia. Fitz rather cleverly made this and the July conversations the centerpiece of the trial (a la: "how could he possibly forget on Tuesday what he discussed on Monday"), but it's fundamentally dishonest. There was no deposition in June--or July, August, or September, for that matter--and we're not entirely sure what was discussed even in October, since the tape/transcript conveniently wasn't taken. The first real record is Libby's grand jury tapes, and those aren't even internally consistent.

I think the odds-on favorite on this particular conversation is that Libby got it wrong, that on the Russert issue he's most likely conflating the phone call with the one from Cooper, and that if it did come with Russert, it was not the main event. Libby obviously didn't remember when he talked about Plame, and all the "learned as if new" stuff afterward appears to be an attempt to reconcile his initial recollection with contradictory notes.

He did forget it, Don. He recovered the knowledge from his notes. That's why he went and told Cheney that Cheney had originally mentioned her name. It stunned them both; neither had a recollection of the early June conversation. Remember, Joe was 'low level' and eminently forgettable. And when realization of the connection came, it may not have been surprising that there was nepotism, probably graft, and surely unbecoming political ambition was involved. I maintain that the White House staff was the last to know what was going on with the Democrats and the Press was doing with their double reverse of Val and Joe.

This Don fellow has done a remarkable job of showing the monstrosity of a trial system which has imprisoned a man for forgetting a trivial conversation months after it took place. Your presentation is chilling in its stark brevity. And yes, I know perfectly well what you were trying to say, and like everything else you've tried to say in this forum, you failed.

Nope, Don, you are completely wrong. Russert lied. Andrea was torn as to whether or not to lie under oath, and NBC got her off the hook. Not without a loss of tailfeathers, buddy, and not without the active aid and assistance of that other suborner, Fitzgerald.

The FBI one morning
Lost its notes, suborning.
Eckenrode,
Where is that toad?
He's wanted at a harrowing.
=================

Obviously there are people in the US who think it's a crime to forget something. The Libby trial should go down in history as the greatest waste of taxpayers money ever and the prosecution of a decent man for absolutely nothing.

The odd thing it was INR, Carl Ford's outfit, that had the memo about Plame
heading the working group on Niger, and her steering Wilson to Oagoo Oagoo in order to discover the 500 metric tons of yellow cake,
which coincidentally were found at the Tammuz reactor in Tuweitha, Iraq. Another interesting deal, is that unless Tandji was either dead or in prison, both are strong likely hoods in places like Niger; according
to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Internatl.
He still would have curried anextraordinary
amount of influence with institutions like COGEMA, or even that Canadian company which eventually carted off the yellow cake.Game. set match. Armitage, who was as strongly anti-Iraq war (but for reasons more related to the Tengiz oil concession)and Novak, who's anti-intervention radar is highly attuned, shared this apparent contempt at 'inter-departmental over-reach. "Bobby" Grenier,was on the Iraq task force, at one point, keep that under your hat, Bob, but it begs the question whether he would have really been informed about Plame's
debriefing of the team in Amman. Unless the operation was folded in as part of John Maguire's CB ANABASIS. One remembers Maguire as 'the spy who squealed' to Corn and McClatchy's Landay; about the insightful
AARDWOLF telegram, which warned of the insurgency, except for the fact that it didn't name the tribes, tribal leaders, or financiers, on any side of theIraqi/Syrian/
Saudi/Jordanian borders who would have been resposible for such a thing. As useful of the August 2001 PDB or most NIEs. Now Maguire's assent would have ostensibly been the hook for a "Welch Act" IAIA prosecution of Libby and/or Rove. Of course, the fact that the Russian, Cuban, and probably Turkish security services already had Plame's number probably diluted that strategy. Shame on Ashcroft, for giving this
fishing expedition over to Martha Stewart's
'dragonslayer' Comey, and for Fitzgerald, for humoring this charade in time of war.

While waiting to breathe life into this morte canard perhaps Waxman can find a minute to look into how the NYT learned the name of the fellow who interviewed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and why they published it after being begged not to. (And here's a bonus, just before they drag Pinch in to the grilling, Schumer can cause a final run on the paper's stock.)

I'm sorry, but probably due mainly to that grandiose delusionary, King Pinch the III, the old gray lady has earned the gibbet. He should hang, too, as well as Rockefeller and Joe Wilson.
=====================

Didn't we all recently suffer a months-long trial with a super, duper, special investigator (or whatever he was called) that looked into all of this in excrutiating detail?? What a great way to waste congressional time on useless attempts at political hit jobs. Disgusting.

Heh. In the related ongoing "you get the government you deserve" saga, Waxman's other distraction investigation turns up some nuggets:

The Committee interviewed several senior officials at the White House, including Communications Director Dan Bartlett, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson. Not a single one could recall when he learned about the fratricide or what he did in response. [emphasis added]

I can just imagine these guy thinking "well, the Army guys are the ones who misreported it, we just passed it along to some reporters . . . Errr, f*** that!"

What I love is that over at emptywheel's place, she has a statement from Wilson.
Sure, now she can get a statement from him. But while Valerie was on FDL making up facts, and while she and Joe were making the grand book tour and proving themselves to 'not be Plameologists', well then, there was no contact with them mentioned.

So it's about what I figured; it happened in an obscure section of the Afghan/
Pakistan border; Kipling country, which doesn't recognize the Durand line; not far from where the recent confrontation with
Taliban, that the news media was willing to describe as "Custer in Kunar", until the casualties, came in, than the account dissapeared like Cpl. Ogilvy in 1984.

as I recall, there was a fundraising drive to have EmptyWheel's Grand Tome on PlameGate published, about $18,000 or so was raised from the FDL'ers for the endeavor -- as Tom begins to curse his noneleemosynaric audience -- so, clearly, she must be right.

"it's Libby's version from months later when asked to recreate the incident wherein he initially heard that bit of trivia. Fitz rather cleverly made this and the July conversations the centerpiece of the trial"

Without notes or representation,more like the Star Chamber.

Now quickly Don,what were you doing on the second Wednesday after your birthday?

Better question, cbolt. How would you fashion a legislative solution to the executive branch dysfunction exemplified by the magnitude and particularity of Fitzgerald's misbehaviour? It's the old Star Chamber question; how does an organization investigate and prosecute itself, but it is worth seeking an answer. An answer would be useful for the protection of public servants.
=========================

-- if there had been honest prosecution, I've little doubt that Cheney's testimony probably would have helped Libby. With Fitz? Would you trust him? --

Without the "Fitz is a skunk" baggage, that's pretty much what I'm speculating - that Cheney's testimony would corroborate Libby's testimony. Their respective stories would not conflict in a way that would undermine Libby's representations to investigators.

Libby's counsel made a strategic decision to not use Cheney's testimony during the trial, and the outcome of the trial is water over the dam. But a chance to explore Cheney's testimony should be viewed as an opportunity to provide a sort of historical rehabilitation to Libby, for what it's worth.

-- Better question, cbolt. How would you fashion a legislative solution to the executive branch dysfunction exemplified by the magnitude and particularity of Fitzgerald's misbehaviour? --

As you know, I reject the characterization of Fitz as blanket misbehavior. One may question whether he used good discretion in pursuing what he thought was a lying witness in a politically-motivated investigation.

But to your question about legislation to prevent (or limit) politically-motivated investigations, I don't think it's possible. No administration should be trusted to investigate itself honestly, and eventually the people will decide whether or not to trust what an administration is (and isn't) telling them. IOW, it's a political issue that isn't amenable to a legislated solution.

The Libby situation was, in almost all ways, self-inflicted by the administration. After all, it was the administration itself that granted the particular charter to Fitzgerald. Libby's argument that the administration couldn't legally charter an investigator with the powers of an AG (without enabling legislation) was never litigated to conclusion. It wasn't even an element of Libby's appeal.

Who is going to rehabilitate the American justice system ,where a prosecutor can conflate a conviction for perjury with the alleged outing of Valerie Plame.
Some of the grandstanding Fitzgerald did would have got him disbarred in the UK

Yeah, please don't throw me in that Briar Patch. The trouble is, do you think Waxman is any more honest than Fitzgerald?

Please don't tell me your best legislative action is for judiciary committees in majority hands to investigate this unconstitutional prosecution. Well, maybe a legistature capable of nonpartisan action would do it, but what are the chances of that, now?
=============================

OK, I understand your point that their is no legislative solution, that it is a political problem. So why have hearings, then?

It is disingenuous to say that this was an executive branch brought on by itself. This was Democrats in the Senate, with the aid of traitorous elements of the CIA and State, and with the amused assistance of the press, forcing an unjustifiable auto-da-fe on this administration in the person of an insane or corrupted administer of justice, Fitzgerald. You are naive or devious to blame the adminstration for this miscarriage of justice. Remember, the twelve law professors?
========================================

Assuming the Cheney testimony is corroborative of Libby's, it's my opinion that all players in the administration would not oppose showing it to the public. Will opposition spin it? Sure. Opposition (and media) spins everything. If that's the test (opposition will spin), then we end up with totally mute administrations.

If this doesn't get settled, it will happen again. Heed the dozen peers in law. So how does it get settled? You say it's a political problem? By what mechanism can politics yield a satisfactory answwer to this question? I'm not talking like I have all the answers. At the same time I wish for a settled, perhaps legislated, manner for any of the branches to be investigated, so also I doubt that the matter can be encased in an inclusive structure.
=================================

You've put your finger on part of the problem of the last 7 years. All messages from the administration have been spun such that it has become mute, contenting itself with the thankless task of effective administration.

Look, the world still goes round and round, and successfully so, too, despite the utter disintegration and impotence of the Pelosi and Reid led legislature. Don't you notice that it is effective execution that is quietly humming along?
======================
================================

-- It is disingenuous to say that this was an executive branch brought on by itself. --

Who gave Fitz the charter? Why was the charter as broad as it was (both in scope and in power)? Who made those choices, the legislature? No, those choices were made entirely within and by the administration. The administration could have maintained its story without chartering an investigator at all, or chartering some internal investigation that would come up with a clean bill of health.

C'mon Kim, everybody knows that committing hariFitzcide is the honorable thing for Republican public servants to do when confronted by the inestimably honest agents of the FBI as personified by Bond and Eckenrode. Sure, corrupt prosecutors and FBI agents are as common as fleas but that doesn't mean that someone should stoop to obfuscation avoid a public flaying. Arkanzheimers was the path Libby should have taken if he didn't want a ride on the Fitz Railroad.

Just look at how diligent Fitz is being at avoiding the bleeding obvious in his dealings on the Rezko/Obama connection - a true Man For All Democrat Seasons.

So again we have this spectacle, a legislature that might be able to solve the problem is so corrupted by the partisanship of people like Waxman, and Schumer, and Rockefeller, that it can't be entrusted to enter into an investigation that offers the least hope of unspun justice to the principals Cheney and Libby.

Surely you have better answers than this. Or do you not see a problem? I mean, after all, you weren't headed for jail, were you? That last might be petty, but I've not heard you expound much on Fitzgerald's transgressions.
=======================================

cbolt, this picture of being entertained by the political theater, and of maintaining that this was a problem brought on by the administration, as opposed to the players I detailed, portrays an unseriousness that is unbecoming of you. You know this was desperate and dangerous disinformation and Libby's prosecution was a miscarriage of justice. How do you justify your attitude of dispassionate and amused observance of the political process while you hold those facts in mind? And holding and knowing what you do, why do you insist on blaming this on the Adminstration? They were far more sinned against than sinning. And why, on God's Green Earth, do you hope to get anything other than entertainment out of Cheney appearing before Waxman. There is pathology, here, sir, and you should be the first to see it.
===============================

I don't think ANY legislature can solve the problem. Whenever there are accusation of wrongdoing on the part of an administration, the accused administration has a wide range of self-investigative devices to choose from. One object of ALL of those devices is to inform the public, sometimes in more detail, sometimes in less - but informing the public as to accusation and rebuttal is part and parcel of our system.

There will always be accusations of wrongdoing, and there will always be a range of options to deal with the accusations.

-- Or do you not see a problem? --

I see plenty of problems, not the least of which is a public that doesn't understand how "the system" is designed (and is inclined to leap to false conclusions based on partisan affiliation), and is gullible.

-- I've not heard you expound much on Fitzgerald's transgressions. --

My point of view of the whole case is radically different from that adopted at JOM and elsewhere, so "meeting of the minds" is impossible. My criticisms of Fitz have been mostly of his overreaching in some arguments, and don't at all resemble the "he's an entirely fucked up, vindictive and partisan hack" criticism that you prefer to see.

I have a hard time believing that an honest prosecutor, reporting to a superior in October 2003 that the leak he was investigating came from the State Department inadvertently as a result of a former Ambassador's meetings (that were referenced in previous NYTimes articles), would've been allowed to continue. The lack of supervision is exactly what enabled the (misused, IMO) discretion.

I also have a hard time believing Fitz believed some of the demonstrably false crap that came out of his mouth at that presser (e.g., "Mr. Libby was the first official known . . ."; "compelling story"; "He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter . . ."). A casual read says Fitz fails the same standard by which he judges Libby (e.g., "if he ain't guilty, why is he lying?"). Which doesn't mean Fitz ought to go to jail . . . it just means the standard is irrational.

But I must say the process was enlightening . . . especially the effective jury shopping available in the DC courts (i.e., N VA for Dems, DC for Reps). And the post-trial statements from the jurors suggests Cheney appearing for the Defense would've been counterproductive.

Well if Fitzgerald weren't 'an entirely fucked up, vindictive and partisan hack' a locution you prefer, then why did he lie like Cecil Turner shows? And why did he not show Eckenrode, and why did he induce Russert into life shortening and impoverishing perjury?
===================

The press failed their duty as communicators moreso than did the White House. This is central to Russert's perjury, and Andrea Mitchell's near miss; the relevant journalists knew a lot more about Plame than did the White House, and Fitzgerald knew, or should have known, that.
===============================

I agree the public is gullible; that doesn't mean they must necessarily be lied to, as they were systemically, in the Plame case. There is plenty of blame there, too, which you ignore. What kind of critic watches only one element of all that's on stage, the works, so to speak?
===================================

Gawd, that's a long story. I've been over it a few times already. Read the archives.

The short version of my point of view is an administration undermining that liar Joe Wilson, in part by using the time-honored use of the press via unnamed sources to reveal to the public that his wife in the CIA had at least a tangential role in setting up his trip to Africa. But the administration denied having any part whatsoever in revealing that. Shitstorm follows, in due course.

Faced with pressure from lying Democrats, the administration chartered an FBI investigation. In an effort to keep administration fingers off the "Wilson's wife" revelation, Libby told the FBI (and eventually, a GJ) that the sum total of his awareness of "Wilson's wife is at the CIA" came from reporters.

Faced with continuing pressure from lying Democrats, the administration chartered an independent investigator, but gave him too much power. Fitzgerald didn't believe Libby's persistent story about only having awareness from reporters (instead, that Libby had awareness completely independent of reporters), and in his discretion, decided to pursue perjury and obstruction charges.

I'm not going to re-argue my point of view here. I'm just restating it for your convenience. I assume you disagree with it - and that's cool by me.

But the administration could have avoided the entire affair in several ways. It could have not been an unnamed source (have Armitage be the only leaker, problem solved); Libby could have told the FBI that he knew, from the CIA, that Wilson's wife worked there; the administration could have appointed a weak investigator, or limited the scope to a narrow inquiry, "was a covert agent outed," and not permitting the investigator to charge perjury or obstruction - just to name three places this wound could have been avoided by unilateral action by the administration.

-- And why, on God's Green Earth, do you hope to get anything other than entertainment out of Cheney appearing before Waxman. --

I don't think Cheney should appear before Waxman. I was speculating that making Cheney's testimony to the FBI available to the public would show that Cheney's recollections don't undermine Libby's, and could rehabilitate the charge that Libby was lying to the FBI and GJ.

All your might-have-beens pale to the injustice done Libby. This was directly wreaked on the administration by Joe Wilson, Val Plame, Senators Rockefeller and Kerry and by members of the press, most prominently Kristoff, and I suppose Corn. The White House was the last to know what was going on, which should have been, certainly could have been, obvious to Fitzgerald. But these are could have beens, just like your might have dones.

Touche on observing the whole scene. You really are superlative, that way.

Never discount hoi polloi. They are the voice at last call.
=============================================

No matter how much of a monkey's uncle Waxman makes of himself, the press will only root out the particular fungal growths of their own liking. This is a spoiled and precious press. Got a solution?
=============================

The only way the administration could have avoided this was by never appointing that jackass Ashcroft as AG.

If Cheney's testimony matches Libby's, the response will be they cooked it up together..Fitz was reportedly pissed off as you recall that Libby told Cheney he'd told the investigators about the June conversation...the idea was to get Libby to testify about an insignificant details months ago without his records and without any opportunity to discuss it with the other participants to refresh his recollection.

The only thing left in the Plame affair I want to know is was she covert or not? I suspect not, since it should be a simple thing to reveal now. Beyond that, this is still a waste of taxpayer dollars when I would prefer they were investigating Schumer, Dodd, et al, over their involvement in Countrywide.

-- The only thing left in the Plame affair I want to know is was she covert or not? --

Definitively answering that question is yet another way the administration could have cut the entire charade short. Instead, the administration accepted and reiterated what was asserted by the lying Democrats, "this is a serious leak" that merits "a serious investigation."

I'm actually pretty cheerful about the Administration allowing the revelation that Justice is damned near as politicized as State to play out in this way. Just a gentle reminder to hoi polloi that casual obeisance to any instrument of Leviathan may have a hidden price tag.

In the ongoing scandal saga in Detroit in which the honorable chairman of the judiciary committee wife, the lovely Monica Conyer's, allegedly caught on surveillance accepting bribe money for her city council vote has been incommunicado recovering from an outpatient unspecified surgery for 2 weeks when she phoned in to a hip hop radio station last monday to say she was still recovering and would be absent city council for another 3 weeks or so because her doctor hadn't released her yet, but evidently managed to attend her own fundraiser at a fancy restaurant with her criminal defense attorney on Thurday night. chutzpah

Recall the uproar about Domenici calling the lefts new hero, US attorney David Iglesias, inquiring about an investigation he lingered on? A crime punishable by death, proving the corruption and politicization of the Bush DOJ?

Yeah, making calls, interfering and exerting political pressure in and ongoing investigation apparently is an eye of the beholder crime because Democrat Gov. Jennifer Granholm

...called a top federal prosecutor to inquire about the strength of the government's ongoing investigation of Bernard Kilpatrick, the father of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, sources said Friday.

Within about two weeks of receiving a May 20 request from the Detroit City Council that she remove Kilpatrick from office, Granholm approached the No. 2 official in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit about whether the City Council's request and a federal investigation related to City Hall contracting could be jointly resolved, sources said.

As a former federal prosecutor, what does a "resolution" to a current widespread corruption investigation mean, hmm?

Had no idea that she was in any way a covert employee. If he had ever said to me, "Somebody's life was in danger if you do this," if he had gotten George Tenet to come on the phone with me I would not have written that.

It’s no great surprise that Democrats are behind the far-reaching Reform Michigan Government Now! proposal that may be on your fall ballot, but the extent of the partisan ambition behind the plan is a real eye-opener. The Mackinac Center Think Tank came across this Power Point presentation http://www.mackinac.org/9667 on a United Auto Workers web site (it’s since been taken down) showing that the Dems are hoping voters will effectively hand them control of the state by passing this cumbersome proposal in the fall.
Advertisement

To make sure of that, they dressed it up with some populist ideas — shrink the Legislature, cut pay and benefits, etc., that voters disgruntled in the current Michigan economy will find hard to resist.

And they have, until now, managed to keep officially secret the party’s role in all this because state laws don’t require such disclosure to circulate petitions...

"the idea was to get Libby to testify about an insignificant details months ago without his records and without any opportunity to discuss it with the other participants to refresh his recollection."

Wonderfully redolent of the Soviet Bloc Show Trials that so entertained the hoi polloi .
I doubt that there is anyone alive who wouldn't make a mistake under those circumstances.
Not terribly Land of the Free is it?

Waxing philosophical (but none of the below is profound) - Yeah, I do have a solution. Independent effort and critical analysis. The more, the better.

I personally assume the press (and every politician) is wrong on every ultimate conclusion; sometimes on purpose, sometime by innocent ignorance. Half-truths, outright lies, misrepresentation of background or current fact, etc. Sometimes they get it right. I chalk those up as luck or accident.

The solution is to review the material at minimum one layer below the press reports, to the facts they are reporting on.

If what you are asking is how to transform the press into an organ that presents an accurate impression of reality, my answer is "I have no solution. The press are free actors, just like you and I (and KOS, and on and on) are."

If what you are asking is how to transform the public into independent thinkers, my answer is "Fuggadaboudit." Human nature is lazy (e.g., thinking that demanding a trustworthy press, or exposing a lying press is somehow going to make readers into critical thinkers) and predisposed to adopt the story that fits their tribe or the outcome they prefer.

Totally changing the subject, I notice a statement of mine above that is 180 degrees out of rig. I said:

Cheney's testimony ... could rehabilitate the charge that Libby was lying to the FBI and GJ.

That's not at all what I was thinking, as should be clear in context. My speculation is that Cheney's testimony could damage the charge that Libby was lying, or reinforce the contention that Libby was NOT lying.

I was speculating that making Cheney's testimony to the FBI available to the public would show that Cheney's recollections don't undermine Libby's, and could rehabilitate the charge that Libby was lying to the FBI and GJ.

Libby has been accused of lying about much more than he was actually convicted of lying about. There's little in Cheney's testimony that I imagine could undermine the prosecutions case, or it would have been discoverable. The things he's been accused of lying about would either not appear in the FBI report or it would be called another lie.

IOW, it could make a monkey out of Waxman. You don't want that?

Waxman is a monkey and yet he doesn't stop. This time would be no different, and just as fruitless as the attempt to answer all questions via special prosecutor turned out to be.

One should never do something against one's own interests in hopes of convincing someone who has an interest in remaining unconvinced.

Assuming the Cheney testimony is corroborative of Libby's, it's my opinion that all players in the administration would not oppose showing it to the public.

Which apparently is based on this ...

undermining that liar Joe Wilson, in part by using the time-honored use of the press via unnamed sources to reveal to the public that his wife in the CIA had at least a tangential role in setting up his trip to Africa.

Which would have been okay if true but does not fit observable data points. The observables are that Wilson's wife was so far off the radar that Libby would have had to actually forget many "significant" events in order to imagine that his supposed cover up could possibly fly. IOW he actually had to forget stuff to concoct such a lame "I forgot" story. The tired and obvious "because he didn't think it would go that far" requires a twofer on stupid. Not valid to infer..

But the administration denied having any part whatsoever in revealing that. Shitstorm follows

Libby played no part and Rove was not aware of his. Buying into the idea that Miller was supposed to print that tidbit from Libby along with the NIE is arguably discredited by her own notes. She suggested the "Flame" name to Libby to see if he would correct it. His claim that reporters already knew was clearly true. An inference that Libby actually intended to feed it to them is not supportable in that context. Indeterminate.

The joker in the deck has always been the Grenier claim that he doesn’t remember saying the words but must have told Libby about Wilson’s wife because he remembers feeling guilty about the possibility that he inadvertently revealed a classified CIA analyst. Assume arguendo that was a valid inference, there is no comparable feeling for Libby to have. If Wilson’s wife was not important to Libby at the time on some emotional level then why would he be any more likely to remember those words than Grenier? Of course in hindsight it seems the emotional impact of hearing those words about the world famous Victoria Secret Flame should register on anybody.

If as cboldt suggests "use of the press via unnamed sources to reveal to the public that his wife in the CIA had at least a tangential role was Libby's scheme, he would NOT have forgotten the details he needed to concoct a CREDIBLE COVER UP. Every mention of Wilson's wife woult have registered hard.